Well, this is an interesting how do you do: Out of the blue, William Murchison has written an article in Human Life Review that scores and explores the heated dispute I had with author and animal advocate Matthew Scully, about his (this is me) mendacious and hysterical review of my book in National Review.
I so disrespected (and disrespect) Scully’s take and subsequent comments in our exchange–not his disagreements with me but his hyper emotionalism and repeated blatant falsehoods about what I wrote–that I was interested to see what a cooler head might think. Murchison likes both of us, and after describing our personal clashes, he tries to divine the feud’s causes, which he believes spring from our differing approaches to animal welfare. (Me again: Scully is not an animal rightist–barely).
I found the article very interesting, particularly its thorough and fair recounting of our respective books and other writings on animal issues. I am very pleased that Murchison liked the book (a “balanced yet brilliantly executed assault on the liberationists”), that contrary to Scully’s review, he points out I do support animal protection, that he “got” what I am about (human exceptionalism) and why, and, I have to admit, I enjoyed that he concluded my overarching argument ” hits nearer the center of the target” (while certainly not castigating Scully’s “call to mercy” approach to animal protection).
I won’t take up space quoting the piece here, but if you would like to read Murchison’s analysis, it is at “Wesley J. Smith vs. Matthew Scully: Animal Rights and Wrongs:”